From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Masters Subject: Re: try_module_get and friends Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:07:08 -0500 Message-ID: <1204661228.8244.15.camel@jcmlaptop> References: <1204608058.11912.3.camel@perihelion> <1204608506.11912.9.camel@perihelion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-rt-users , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Received: from panic.printk.net ([217.147.83.20]:59699 "EHLO panic.printk.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761675AbYCDUjD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 15:39:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1204608506.11912.9.camel@perihelion> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:28 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 00:20 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > > So, what's protecting the RT kernel from falling over if a CPU frequency > > governor module is removed at the wrong moment? > > That's a contrived example, it does the right thing in the ones I've > looked it, but it just occurred to me that this might not be general for > kernel code where random pointers to modules are getting thrown around. I recommend not setting CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD on RT kernels for now. I looked at programmatically implementing this in Kconfig, but it seems that CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD is never explicitly set anywhere, it's simply in the deconfig for each architecture - anyone know Kconfig well enough to tell us how to fix up Kconfig.preempt to do the right thing? Jon.